Who Defines the Middle?

Countering the Gazette’s Misinformation

“Tug of War” by toffehoff is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

The Colorado Springs Gazette’s recent editorial urging Democrats to “move to the middle” is a textbook example of how misinformation and deliberate framing are used to manipulate public perception. The editorial twists narratives, cherry-picks statements, and employs emotionally charged language to manufacture an image problem for Democrats — one of their own creation.

This approach not only distorts the values and policies Democrats champion, but it also exemplifies a broader effort to artificially shift the Overton Window, the range of ideas deemed acceptable in public discourse. Left unchecked, these tactics threaten to reshape public understanding of what constitutes moderation, forcing parties to abandon widely supported positions in favor of an illusory middle ground.

Let’s unpack how the Gazette editorial employs these techniques, why they’re problematic, and how to counter them.

The Overton Window: Shifting Perceptions, Not Realities

The concept of the Overton Window is critical to understanding the Gazette’s strategy. This framework defines the spectrum of politically acceptable ideas at any given time. By framing widely supported Democratic policies as “radical” or “out of touch,” the editorial attempts to shift the Overton Window further to the right, making conservative ideas appear moderate and forcing Democrats to defend positions that already align with the majority of Americans.

Illustration of the Overton window, along with Treviño’s degrees of acceptance • Hydrargyrum • CC BY-SA 2.0

This tactic doesn’t just distort public perception; it redefines the middle entirely. The result is a manipulated discourse where effective, data-driven solutions — like climate action or healthcare expansion — are dismissed as extreme, while policies that serve narrower interests are normalized as reasonable compromises.

We’ve seen this playbook before. During Kamala Harris’s recent presidential campaign, her robust economic platform — grounded in policies designed to lower costs for families, promote small business growth, and create an “Opportunity Economy” for middle-class Americans — was overshadowed by fabrications and distortions. Harris’s plan proposed:

• Cutting Taxes for Working Families: Restoring the expanded Child Tax Credit of up to $3,600, which previously helped reduce child poverty to record lows and cut food insecurity by over 20%.
• Lowering Costs: Targeting food, energy, and prescription drug prices through supply chain investments and price-gouging legislation.
• Boosting Homeownership: Offering $25,000 in down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and expanding affordable housing supply.
• Investing in Small Businesses: Doubling tax incentives for startups and reducing barriers to entrepreneurship in underserved communities.

However, rather than focusing on these detailed, evidence-backed proposals — which would have directly benefited millions of Americans — opponents flooded the discourse with false claims, framing Harris as disconnected from voters’ concerns. The mainstream media, chasing ratings and controversy, too often amplified these distortions instead of correcting the record.

The parallels with the Gazette’s editorial are striking. Both employ the same deliberate tactic: labeling broadly supported, pragmatic policies as radical to push the Overton Window further to the right. This distortion is not about public service; it’s about controlling the narrative to undermine real solutions for families and communities.

Misusing Murib’s Words: A Case Study in Misinformation

A glaring example of this strategy lies in how the Gazette misrepresents remarks by Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib. The editorial frames Murib’s comments about “hard conversations” as an admission that Democrats need to “move to the middle.”

In reality, Murib’s remarks likely referred to internal lessons learned, such as improving digital and social media outreach or ensuring counties have equitable access to national resources. Instead of acknowledging these plausible interpretations, the editorial twists his words to fit a preordained narrative, suggesting Democrats are conceding ideological ground.

This deliberate reframing exemplifies how misinformation distorts not just policies but the intent behind leadership statements. It’s a tactic designed to pressure Democrats into abandoning positions that already reflect the majority’s priorities.

The Manufacturing of an Image Problem

Beyond misrepresenting Murib’s words, the Gazette constructs a false “image problem” for Democrats by reducing complex policies into a series of culture war talking points.

The lurch to the left only can leave rank-and-file voters thinking the party is out of touch. That it cares more about battling a global “climate crisis” than about creating well-paying jobs at home; about coddling criminals than about fighting crime; about fostering exotic wildlife than about safeguarding the livestock that’s supposed to feed us all; about sheltering the world’s refugees on taxpayers’ tab — than about providing basic public services to our own citizens.

• Democrats supposedly “care more about battling a global ‘climate crisis’ than creating well-paying jobs at home.”
• They are accused of “coddling criminals” rather than fighting crime.
• Conservation efforts are framed as prioritizing “fostering exotic wildlife” over safeguarding livestock.
• Refugee policies are depicted as “sheltering the world’s refugees on taxpayers’ tab” rather than providing basic public services for citizens.

This paragraph is a masterclass in deliberate distortion. By presenting these issues as mutually exclusive, the editorial constructs false binaries that obscure the nuanced reality of Democratic policies.

Climate Action vs. Jobs

The claim that Democrats prioritize climate action over jobs is patently false. In Colorado and across the country, clean energy initiatives are creating thousands of high-paying jobs. Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sectors already employ more workers than coal, and the transition to green energy represents long-term economic growth, not economic loss.

Criminal Justice Reform vs. Public Safety

Efforts to reform the justice system are not about “coddling criminals” but about addressing systemic issues that reduce recidivism and improve safety for all. Investments in community-based solutions, mental health services, and equitable policing build trust and prevent crime at its root.

Environmental Conservation vs. Agriculture

Protecting biodiversity and promoting sustainable farming are not conflicting priorities — they are complementary. Conservation policies safeguard ecosystems, which in turn support the long-term health and resilience of agricultural communities.

Refugees vs. Public Services

Framing refugee support as a zero-sum competition with public services ignores the reality that refugees contribute significantly to local economies. Refugees are entrepreneurs, workers, and taxpayers who strengthen communities and bolster public resources.

Weaponizing Language: A Familiar Playbook

The Gazette’s framing mirrors other disinformation campaigns designed to stoke division. For example, the term “pro-life” positions body autonomy advocates as anti-life, erasing the complexity of reproductive rights debates. Similarly, the editorial casts Democrats’ policy priorities as radical, using language designed to provoke emotional reactions rather than encourage thoughtful dialogue.

This strategy serves two purposes:

1. Deflect Attention: By reducing Democratic values to culture war clichés, the editorial distracts from substantive discussions about policy outcomes.
2. Pressure Democrats to Concede: The framing forces Democrats to defend their mainstream policies instead of advancing them, creating an artificial sense of extremism.

The Broader Implications

These tactics are not merely rhetorical — they have real consequences for public discourse. By shifting the Overton Window, misinformation campaigns redefine what is considered reasonable, limiting the scope of acceptable solutions to shared challenges.

For instance, climate action is urgent and necessary, supported by 62% of Americans. Yet, by labeling it as a “global crisis” that undermines jobs, the editorial creates the illusion that prioritizing environmental sustainability is out of step with public interests. This framing not only delays action but undermines public trust in the policies that address systemic issues.

Reclaiming the Narrative

To counter these tactics, policymakers and leaders must proactively reclaim the narrative. It is not enough to challenge misinformation in traditional forums or rely on decades-old outreach strategies. The battle for truth and public perception must occur in the spaces where people are consuming, sharing, and debating information today. This means engaging with facts on platforms where misinformation thrives and connecting with audiences in their environments — not just where leaders hope they’ll be.

Here’s how to reclaim the narrative effectively:

1. Expose False Binaries: Policies like climate action, justice reform, and refugee support are not zero-sum choices. These priorities are interconnected solutions to complex problems. For example, green energy policies create jobs while addressing the climate crisis, and justice reform reduces crime by building safer communities. Leaders must highlight these overlaps to dismantle simplistic “either-or” narratives that opponents use to divide and distract.
2. Refocus on Evidence: Countering misinformation requires showcasing measurable outcomes. Data and success stories can dismantle fabricated narratives. Highlighting achievements like job creation through clean energy investments, crime reduction via community programs, and economic growth fueled by refugee contributions makes policies tangible and relatable. However, presenting this evidence must go beyond press releases and policy papers — it needs to be delivered through formats and channels that resonate with modern audiences.
3. Engage Broader Audiences Where They Are: Traditional campaign methods often focus on controlled environments, such as town halls or party-affiliated events, where audiences are already engaged. But most Americans, especially less politically engaged voters, are spending their time elsewhere: on social media platforms, in local online communities, and through nontraditional media channels. Leaders must go to these spaces — not with slogans, but with real information.
4. Clarify Misrepresented Statements: Opponents often misquote or take comments out of context to create misleading narratives, as seen in the Gazette’s treatment of Murib’s remarks. Leaders must act swiftly to provide the full context of statements and explain their intent, ensuring that manipulative reframing does not take hold. Addressing misrepresentations head-on through social media, community forums, and interviews can prevent misinformation from spreading unchecked.

Meeting People Where They Are

The essence of reclaiming the narrative lies in understanding where and how people consume information. A significant portion of misinformation thrives on platforms that reward engagement over accuracy — places like Facebook, X, YouTube, and TikTok. These spaces are fertile ground for simplified, emotionally charged messaging. Democrats cannot afford to dismiss these platforms simply because they are messy, polarized, or different from traditional campaign tools.

Real engagement requires moving beyond the party’s comfort zone to connect with voters where they are, in their digital neighborhoods, on the apps they open daily, and in the informal conversations they trust. Only by confronting falsehoods in these environments can leaders disrupt the cycle of misinformation and ensure voters hear the truth.

The Gazette’s editorial is a case study in how misinformation and framing tactics distort public discourse. By misusing Murib’s words, distilling complex policies into culture war slogans, and shifting the Overton Window, the editorial exemplifies how deliberate manipulation reshapes the public’s understanding of moderation and extremism.

Democratic policies are not radical — they align with the values and priorities of the majority. Recognizing and countering these tactics is essential to maintaining a political center rooted in truth and shared purpose.

The middle does not belong to those who manipulate it; it belongs to those who stand firm in their commitment to evidence-based, pragmatic solutions for all Americans.